Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Figure 1.

The flowchart of the selection of the relevant articles.

More »

Figure 1 Expand

Figure 2.

Summary of quality of the included studies, according to the QUADAS criteria (see Table S2 for details).

More »

Figure 2 Expand

Table 1.

Results of the meta-analysis of the diagnostic markers for colorectal cancer.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Figure 3.

The ROC and forest plots of summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic marker CEA.

A is the ROC plot of the hierarchical summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity for CEA with 95% confidence and prediction ellipses. B and C are forest plots of sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic marker CEA for colorectal cancer plotted with a HSROC model. The size of the squares in B and C are proportional to the study size and weight for each study. The rhombus represents the pooled estimates, which are 0.461 (CI: 0.448–0.474) and 0.892 (CI: 0.882–0.902) for specificity and sensitivity, respectively.

More »

Figure 3 Expand

Table 2.

The results of meta-analysis of prognostic makers for colorectal cancer.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Figure 4.

Meta-analysis plots of the progression-free and overall survival hazard ratios in individual trials.

A is the forest plot and B, C, and D are the “filled” funnel plots of OS, DFS, and the unclear group, respectively. The meta-analysis displayed a significant effect in favor of a high volume. The pooled and filled results are presented in Table 2.

More »

Figure 4 Expand